No. That is not what was remotely implied here.
Of course it is only truly one or the other.
I am not questioning your stance, but from my position your conclusion appears short-sighted.
The framers, and the US Constitution.
That however is a moot point with you, because I am sure you will drag out a tired concept of "living, breathing pieces of paper", with nary a shred of evidence to point out that it was constructed as such.
You act as if I am the only person who view the Constitution as a living breathing document. I have offered reasons why I have concluded that it is inherently interpretive. There is no Constitutional Article or Amendment that state that it is such, just as there is neither of the two that state that it is something other than interpretive.
Completely unsubstantiated hyperbole.
Also, note your common flaw. The assumption that whatever the masses say, is inherently right.
Do you really want to descend into accusations of "hyperbole" or have an actually discussion about the intent and purpose of the Constitution and how relates to its application?
What is a "common flaw?" Is this common flaw a personal flaw, or a flaw that I share with a group of people? Please, stick to the discussion, and lay off these general statements such as "common flaw." Unless you are prepared to describe to me what is 'common' and what is a 'flaw' and what, in by your understanding, constitutes a common flaw.
I did not state that what the masses say make it inherently right. There is nothing made inherently right or wrong...there is only right or wrong established by individual, institution, and an institutionalization of right and wrong generally.
The necessity of a government to act on behalf of the will of the people was an understandable concession at the founding of this country. However, were you more studious, you would realize that it was meant to be as small as possible in a manner only meant to enhance life, without oppressing it.
So, you concede that the Constitution was brought to a signature worthy state due to concessions...that's a start. Again, another snide comment, this time bringing into question my studiousness.
So, you are asserting that the Constitution was meant to enhance life, without oppressing it? I am sure you realize the conflict there. When you enhance the life of one individual, say, economically, it creates the opportunity for oppression of those who did not advance. I am not saying I agree with your asserting that the Constitution was meant to do such a thing, but we can start from there, I am on board.
The Constitution is meant to enhance life. An extension from that enhancement is the reality that not all peoples will be enhanced to the same degree. From various degrees of enhancement comes an imbalance that cuts into opportunity. When person A acquires the means of production, then person B is subject to person A for their economic existence. All that stops A from monopolizing are regulations that are set by the State.
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please construct it in a fashion so that I may actually understand what the hell you are trying to say here.
Thanks.
Thank you for asking nicely.
"All I read in the above quote is this concept of free, well, and your asserting that complete freedom involves government acting on behalf of the people, whomever those "people" are."
Sorry:
I was stating that "complete freedom" is merely a concept. Also, the reference you made to "free people" and not understanding what "people" you might be referring to. "Freedom" can mean many things.
The concept of "complete freedom" is an interesting one that I hope you would elaborate on, please.
The inference that you know what "side" I am, is absolutely hilarious. As I read this post you immediately go on denigrating the "right", while not even knowing the party I am affiliated with.
That's a great move on your part. Get emotive.
It's always right to do what "feels" right. Yes, Beretta?
You have yet to tell me what side you are on. You are the one who has claimed above that there are absolutes..."Of course it is only truly one or the other" is what you stated.
It is right to do not necessarily what "feels" right, hopefully it would be "it is right to do what one has concluded as being right." There are some things I have concluded are right that do not fall in line with certain other views that I might have...I know, sounds like waffling to some people, just an acknowledgment that there are no simple solutions to issues, well, IMO.
So, your responses are absent any thing emotive?
Legal documents are always good when you can twist, contort, defile, or pull whatever meaning may be tried out of it, yes?
The truth is, you are leaning towards a "progressive" direction of government that is completely out of line with its Constitutional foundation.
Legal documents, if you are referring to the Constitution (?) IMO is inherently interpretive. You can conclude, if you choose, that it is a "contortion...defile[ment]." What is interesting is that if you agreed with the "contort" it would not be a bad thing, but a Constitutional one...how provocative!
This doesn't upset you though, because you probably wouldn't know the federalist papers from a roll of Charmin.
Party affiliated debate aside, I find it rather disgusting, I mean severely putrid, to sit and listen to people who think a document says whatever they think it says, or whatever they can twist it to mean.
Be a stand up individual and at least STATE that you do not agree with the Constitution, but don't sit and wipe your ass with it to push your putrid party ideologies.
I do not agree with certain interpretations of the Constitution. Is that good enough for you? Jeez, the funny thing about all of this is I am merely offering genuine responses. Don't expect such openness from most people, especially people online. If you are interesting in having a discussion about anything in particular, minus personal attacks, than I am all for it. We will likely not agree, but hey, it's not like we have to, there is no requirement that we do.
I have no party perse'. And if I did, I would not consider it to be putrid...are you being emotive now?
The right is just as guilty in this, but the left is definitely par for the course.
Are you speaking for the right?
You are incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.
Humankind has shown a need for "communal belonging", but not a need for "individual instruction".
Distinct difference.
Some Anthropology courses would do you well.
There you go again with this notion of absolutism. Where does that come from?
Humankind (I appreciate your wordage here, believing that there is something "kind" about humans) has shown a need for communal belonging? How so? Is it because humans have historically formed communities? Does that imply, or form a direct correlation between humans forming communities and it being asserted that they show a need for communal belonging? Or are you strategically placing words such as "shown" to make it appear as though that is the case, but there is nothing definitive in such an assertion?
You are right, there is a distinct difference between "communal belonging" and "individual instruction." When I was making reference to the concept of individual instruction I was pointing out that in order for the communal belonging to come to fruition, meaning, the individuals seeking communal belonging are incorporated into a social structure, and by that structure the majority of individuals are, for whatever reason, in need of instruction on how to behave, and what to think (what to believe in).
Quote of the evening right here.
The facts are that the states with the least government oversight, are the most free, and typically fare well both fiscally as well as having the lowest crime rates.
Perfect example -
Vermont vs. California
Your argument is flawed, and before you even attempt to respond as if its fact, please study facts. That is, unless they are lost on you.
And you were doing so well with keeping the personal attacks to a minimum the past couple of quotes.
If you pay attention to the (S), you will see that I was referring to States, not states. States, as in countries.
A lack of government does not infer a lack of law or order.
Furthermore, nobody talked about the complete abolition of government. More to the founding fathers original intent of severe minimization.
I agree, a lack of government does not infer a lack of law and order. Since that is the case, can you direct me to a State that is without a government that has managed to stay intact?
You have deemed my response hypocritical, I am shocked.
Are you mental?
Did I really, REALLY just read this?
#1. I am not religious Beretta. Yet personal responsibility is incredibly important to me.
#2. You are obviously a fan of Saul Alinsky.
#3. Religion did not "create a facade" of "Personal responsibility. (Holy Christ on a rubber crutch, where did you get this line of total bullsh*t?)
No, Wayne, I am not mental...at least, I don't think that I am.
I did not say that you are religious.
Ok, so you think it is BS...is this the part where I state that I am surprised by your response? I am obviously a fan of Saul Alinsky...are you sure about that?
Personal responsibility is a concept that is used to negate individual responsibility to society as a whole. You should calm down a bit, I am just telling you what I have concluded. You always have the "freedom" (I know how much you love the concept of freedom) to not agree with me.
Yes, bound to happen because...it's a pertinent point????
yeah, that's PRECISELY why it was brought up. I also brought up "safety" but you libfarted past that and straight to healthcare.
Way to miss the point entirely.
I didn't miss the point, you were making it without the need to place healthcare on this page. Healthcare takes away your rights? Describe to me the rights that you had before the healthcare bill, and the rights that you are now denied, thank you.
Just because there is a lateral impact that varies based on individual, does not mean you are entitled to support the rest of the collective whole.
Nice choice of words "lateral impact." I did not state that people are entitled. I stated that there is an effect to person A acquiring great wealth in that person B is then subject to person A. Then again, you believe in the concept of "free will." If you believe that you have the freedom to become whatever it is you want to become than you must be in a pretty good economic position. Let's face it, who would choose to be poor, if they could choose to be rich.
Believing so is patent stupidity.
You have concluded that it is patently stupid, Ok.
Long before you or I started cruising to McDonalds, people were farming their own fields, harvesting their own grain, tending to their own flocks and their garden. They would do so with minimal impact to the outside world, but this fact, again, is completely lost on your whimsical worldview. How selfish of them to not trek to their neighbors every day, and hand over a sack of grain. Am I right?
I don;t eat at McDonalds, but I get what you are saying. I disagree, people were not necessarily one with the Earth, and one with self-sufficiency. There was and is an interdepedance. They would hand over grain if they knew that their neighbor was in need of it. The community enlisted one another to take care of a crop when one farmer was sick, knowing that if they were to ever become ill, and were unable to tend to their field they would receive help...call it a pre-welfare state.
There is a sliding scale of obligation, with freedom towards the smallest individual unit, and servitude towards the other. Once you slide that scale towards supporting more people, the unavoidable truth is an endpoint of servitude and tyranny.
Hyperbole (I hate to resort to this)?
You desperately need some socio-economic classes.
I am not in desperate need of much, just another cup of coffee. Regarding socio-economic classes, they already exists.
Cute strawman. He looks like Raggedy Andy.
I am not a Republican.
Boy don't you feel silly.
You call it a strawman, I call it an observation...go figure!
I didn't say that you are a Republican, did I?
"Individual responsibility is fake".
Gotcha.
Go kill another human being Beretta, and tell me who is responsible.
UH OH!
There is a difference between "fake" and a "concept." When I am using the term "facade" I am referring to a construct that exists as a concept.
I have never killed a human being. If I were to be in the unfortunate position where a person died when I was defending myself, I would consider what degree of responsibility was mine and what degree was theirs...I might even conclude that the responsibility was in the hands of the person perpetrating the crime against me.
False!
It can be completely understood that one may understand the necessity of government while observing its shortcomings. Before we got involved in talking about firearms bans, healthcare constitutionality, presidential sexual relations, and the like, our forefathers laid a specific foundation, and prayed that it would stay.
That is as minimalistic a government as possible, meant only to serve the needs of the people without swelling to the size we have today.
The Founding Fathers prayed?
"Minimalistic a government as possible," and you have concluded that our current state of government is not such...but who determines that to be the case one way or the other? So, you are stating that the government is there to serve the needs of the people? What if those needs are healthcare and financial assistance?
I can provide substantiation from the founding fathers if you like, but only if you promise not to print it out and fill your pets cage with it.
I do not own pets.
"Whatever it may be" indeed, at least, as far as an individual who thinks "personal responsibility" is a fabrication of religion. :lol:
Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
Thomas Jefferson, the founder of your beloved Democratic party, stated himself that on all questions related to the construction of the Constitution, let us go back to the time when it was adopted, and manifest the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
He did not say, "Yo dawg, let's have a ganja party and see how we can twist this bitch", regardless of how funny you and your democratic friends find it (No personal responsibility, means no personal integrity.)
If that is the case than we should reference both the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. If you are up to that, than let's do it. I am taking 20 credits this quarter so my responses may not be posted quickly.
Then the question would be why do you want to have a discussion with someone you have determined to have no integrity?
Of course, the liberal democrats have strayed severely from Jefferson, often trying to denigrate his character. An easy task being that he has been dead for 150+ years. How brave of you and your ilk to denigrate a man who not only founded your party, but would debate any current politician into a hole, from which they would not leave for the rest of their natural life.
How brave of you to assert that we should dig up the writing of the long-deceased and pontificate what each and every one of them intended, and attempt to bring all of their stances together as if we can form some specific purpose in the Constitution.
"Liberty", is tangible.
"True Freedom", is tangible.
If you write a concept of 'liberty" onto a piece of paper then yes, it is tangible. If you are a lone individual with a concept of liberty then yes, it is tangible in your experience.
True freedom is not tangable...freedom is, but as I outlined above.
Oh and, "Personal Responsibility", wasn't created by the church.
I think even other liberal democrats are laughing right now...
You are right, it wasn't, it is used as a tool, well, and a political concept.
I am not sure if liberal democrats are laughing right now...do you know some that are reading what I have stated? You are stating that I am a liberal democrat, I suppose I am if liberal democrats are for the Second Amendment, and pro-death penalty. Also, I don't know to many liberal democrats that believe we should shoot our enemies to death, not hug them until they like us, or kill us...the latter (hugs) occurs more often than the former.